So, I figured rather than keep the old song and dance going by wasting time over "you were wrong to believe this man because......." and the resulting "no we weren't because........." It would be more productive if you took all the facts available to us at the time and explain how you would have handled everything to date.
That's why I've asked the most vocal 'questioners' separately so there is no 'dittoing'. You seem to have some very clear ideas of how this should have played out so that it would have been more credible.
A fair question, even if is appears that my answer may already have been prejudged.
If you look back at the very earliest posts on the Mae Magouirk case on the 3 or 4 early threads, you will find me simply questioning the sole source of information being Ken and the sole report being WND. Now I don't know Ken personally as one poster here does, but the questions I posed then did not denigrate Ken nor acquit Gaddy. I wanted to know the substance of any court order, and some corroboration of statements purportedly made by Gaddy.
I took exception to the very titles on the threads which clearly seemed to make this case another Schiavo affair, which of course it wasn't. I simply urged caution in blindly accepting what was being said by only one side as gospel.
I was completely unaware of the substance of the court order which seems to have addressed almost every concern here, except the guardianship issue. I was not aware of the ordered doctor reviews, the order for nutrition, the fact that the order itself was actually written by Mullinax' attorney, the fact that Mae was receiving some food and water (ice), and the fact that all parties hugged at the end of the signing of the agreement.
I felt from the beginning that some information appeared to be missing, and a search for the whole story was not out of line. It is certainly no secret that Mullinax conducted a lot of interviews, and in so doing failed to mention these obviously important facts.
I am not smarter than Mullinax and likely most Freepers. Raw emotions, IMO, ruled from the beginning, emotions still high after the death of Terri. If you go back and read some of the very early posts on the various threads you will see that judgments were quickly made concerning Gaddy, the judge and the hospice. Everything Ken said was gospel, and everything else was irrelevant. My first reaction was similar to most. But I know WND, and I know its agenda, and begin to ask questions to see if my first reaction was valid. It was not. I feared some of the same extreme reaction that I saw in the Schiavo case resurfacing once again. I rejected defacing of American flags, desecration of crucifixes, death threats, unconstitutional federal intervention, Nazi death camp pictures with the usual Hitler comparisons.
So, I guess my answer is that I would have done pretty much what I did do, but perhaps less visibly. There is little doubt that as some have opined, Free Republic has changed. The Schiavo and Magouirk cases have sharply divided Freepers, far more than the usual combative issues like Libertarianism, creationism, drugs and taxes. And since we here at FR are a microcosm of the rest of the conservative county, I hope it does not portend a long lasting rift that will have negative electoral impacts. The left will certainly try and drive a wedge.
My apologies to anyone offended by my remarks or questions. I have nothing but the greatest respect for those who will spend their resources saving lives. But at the same time you must recognize those who might disagree with some methods. We are not Godless Satans who have lost our souls forever as we have been characterized.
And for those who work for better hospice care, Bravo. For those who would work to see state laws changed to better reflect hospice conditions, living wills, guardianship rules, advances in technology, distinguishing between life support and feeding mechanisms, etc., I applaud you, as these are the things that will bring real reform to an obviously abused system of elder care.